Jenksismyhero

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 07:12 PM) That's pretty much it. We can't "fix" it now, but we can sure as heck get out and let them blow each other to bits. Or at least go in without an obvious artery there to cut. I guess I'm thinking the reaction would be just as bad. Instead of them hating us for being there, they'll hate us for no longer spending a ridiculous amount on their one major export. One of Bin Laden's beefs was that we let Saudi Arabia take a step or two backwards. Imagine what the middle east would become we pulled out our XX billions we spend on oil.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 12:27 PM) Oh for f***s sake. There are, and have been, many, many alternative paths this government could have taken here that would be far better solutions than the two alternatives that we are being pedaled - attacking countries for no good reason, or retreat and appease. Are you telling me you have fallen for this extremist crap Kap? This B.S. the administration And the media are pushing about either supporting their failed Iraq effort or you are some sort of coward? Or else you want all out war and are a warmonger? Its not about Islam, and its not about poverty. Its about the west having meddled in the affairs of that region stupidly and for far too long, coupled with the fact that we NEED the oil that is in that region. And from the local angle, mix in a nice dose of corrupt governments and religious control of law, and there you have it. Add it up, and you create a cauldron of hatred towards the west AND they have some big chips that we don't. You want a real solution? If you aren't willing to shrink scope in Iraq (i.e. take the Kurd route) and clean up the corruption and waste in the U.S. coalition, then get the hell out of there entirely. Spend HALF the money we throw at Iraq on alternative energy, and in a few years, we suddenly won't need them anymore. We can be energy independent, or at least a lot closer to it. THEN, we can go back in (if we so desire) with the advantage on our side, and actually accomplish something. Here is something to add to the debate as well. Think about this - go to Iraq, Iran or Palestine, and you'll probably find that 50% or more of the population has some level of boiling hatred towards the U.S. Take the same poll of Muslims in the U.S., or even in Europe, and you'll find that number to be much smaller. Why? Because those people have suddenly had their eyes opened to the benefits of the west, of democracy, and of free markets. They aren't brainwashed anymore. So, as counter-intuitive as it may be, one of the best things we can do is to INCREASE ties between our culture and theirs. More immigrants, more economic flow, more information. Bah, I disagree completely. You mistake muslim countries with muslim extremist groups. What does Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah or any other terrorist group care if we need their regions oil? They don't. They could careless. Even if tomorrow the government flips a switch and we never need another drop of oil again it's not like terrorists will stop and say 'well gosh, I guess we no longer have what they want, I guess we better stop attacking them.' As much as my 'side' is stupid in thinking an all out war will solve the problem, your 'side' continues to think that we're dealing with rational, logical human beings. We're not. You can't deal with irrational people in a rational way. It doesn't work. These people want to murder people. They want to make the West crumble in the name of Allah. This isn't some sort 'you killed my brother, now i'm going to kill you' revenge scenario. It's decades and decades of state sponsored brain-washing, mixed with some stupid US policy, that's created this beast. And gee - middle-easterners think better of the West when they get introduced to democracy, freedom and free markets. Hmm, isn't that a reason we're in Iraq to begin with?

Murray - "What if he died?" Arj Barkers character - "What if he did what?" Murray - "No, I'm saying what if he died?" Arj Barkers character - "I know, what is it that he did?" Hilarious. Their One Night Stand (on HBO Demand for those that have it) is the best. The version of the songs are a lot better on stage I think. "Business Time" has to be my favorite.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 03:12 PM) Grutter, not Gratz. Oops, you're right. Gratz was the Michigan undergrad case.

QUOTE(jheath160 @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 02:36 PM) I sure hope that was sarcasm that I read, there, Jenks. I know it sounds very cliche', but where there's a will, there's a way. EVERY person has the opportunity to make a better life for themselves in this country. They just have to want it, and be willing to work hard for it...legally. In my area, the "system" seems to recycle those families who don't have the drive or desire to do more for themselves right back into the "system". Very few have the drive and desire to make it out, but those that do are phenomenal individuals who give a tremendous amount back, and try to make a difference in the lives of others in an effort to change the "system". Lol, yeah my bad. Definitely sarcasm. I was going to write a big "NOT!" at the end, but didn't want to offend those that actually think that way (at least not seriously). There are a few of them on this board.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 01:56 PM) I think Kennedy's opinion is a good example of why this issue is not so simple. The other majority opinion is just remarkably sweeping, seemingly implying that even noticing race, any act of categorizing except in redressing previous local institutionalized discrimination, is unconstitutional. That seems pretty extreme. Compare it to the Michigan law school decision a couple years ago. This really is a fast change. In the opinion, they bracket off the Michigan decision, saying that its program looked at factors other than race. I can't see, logically, how that's different in any meaningful way. But it does leave a loophole to be tested, which could be interesting. I don't either, which is why they should have just overruled the Gratz decision.Talk about judicial activisim. Gratz essentially said: when you're dealing with membership in a historically exclusive group, it's ok if race is one factor to be looked at because diversity is good. Still cracks me up that O'Conner had to write in her conclusion something close to 'hopefully in 25 years we won't need affirmative action.'

Come on. Doesn't she know how difficult life on the streets can be? These kids have no choice. Their communities give them no hope. The government gives them no assistance. This is the life they were all born to live thanks to our greedy society.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 28, 2007 -> 11:49 PM) There is no such thing as "judicial activism." There's only "judges whose opinions you disagree with." Rehnquist and Roberts are big scrappers and overturners and precedent-setters. Is it a bad thing? Debateable. But they're just as "activisticcccc" as anyone they've replacedddddd I couldn't disagree more. Supreme Court Justices maybe not (though some will debate you, see Lockner and it's history) but District Courts and State Courts suffer immensely from it. There are judges in every circuit that try to 'make a point' and steer the law the way they want it to be steered. And heck, any affirmative action decision has zero basis in the law. That's all judicial activism. That's the battle cry 'let's use racism to fix racism.'

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Jun 28, 2007 -> 12:05 PM) I remember we ran that. I had this great teacher in 8th grade for everything Civil War, and at the end of the year we took a trip there. We hit a lot of the key areas around the town; my favorite was thing was the rocks at Devil's Den. We did a lot of awesome things there. Our teacher had us all research a soldier, and "adopted" them. At the end, we all ended up searching for our soldier's grave in the national cemetery and laying a rose on it. I really would like to go back now, that I could appreciate it more. I really love US history (taking an elective credit of such in the fall, as I haven't really had anything since early HS). That's an awesome idea with the adoption of a soldier. Very cool teacher you had. I might be the last person to have read this, but did anyone else read Devil in the White City? I finished it in like 4 days. Fascinating stuff.

I've got a Cingular 8125 (HTC 'Wizard' is the base model). It's a PocketPC. My only gripe is that the internet on it is slow, but they have a new one out, the 8525 that uses Cingulars Edge network. If you like to mod stuff it's fun. I've got a cool white sox background on the 'today' screen and nes and sega emulators on it when I get bored on the train. I've also got a 2gb mini-sd card filled with tv shows. Some friends of mine have the crackberry. Maybe it's because I had this phone first, but I've never dug the blackberry's at all. I feel like mine can do 10 times more things and in a more user friendly way (touch screen for instance).

My family and I hopped in the RV when I was 12-13 (mid 90's) and hit up most of the Civil War sites. Gettysburg was cool, although the town sorta detracts from everything (too touristy). I watched the Gettysburg film with Jeff Daniels on the drive there and remember being very informed about what happened. The coolest part I think was that hill that they defended for so long. I remember walking around that area and looking at the crazy slope those guys ran up just to get shot down. If anyone is interested in this stuff, I think my favorite is the battlefield museum at Vicksburg. The driving tour was awesome.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Jun 27, 2007 -> 02:42 PM) SoxBadger and Jenksismyb****, You two obviously have better knowledge of Con Law than I do, since you've been to Law School and the only Bar exam I've ever passed involved booze. I guess I still don't know (and no one does, really) what would have happened if the sign had said "Bong Hits for Ted Stevens!". Maybe some accomplished student should try something along those lines, just to humor me. By the Courts ruling it doesn't matter. The speech involved a reference (however vague) to drugs, and the advocation of drugs is in direct violation of a content-neutral rule that the Court had no problem with. They leave a small window open by saying this was in no way political speech. So, perhaps, if he had held up a sign that sad "Bong hits 4 Bush," then maybe it would have been protected.

So would the single purpose be tobacco use which you've admitted to have seen 'less than a handful' of times or for pot, which you've seen 'thousands of times?' I fail to see how bongs are used for a 'single' purpose when you yourself have witnessed them being used in two different ways. Let's put aside the argument that it refers to pot. The crux of the analysis should have been whether the sign, with the assumption 'bong hit' referred to pot, was advocated drug use. Just like we all know that 'bong' 99.9% of the time is referring to pot, we all know the answer to that is no, it didn't, and it never would. This was a horrible opinion by the Court as the most important issue (the interpretation of whether his actions violated the rule) was the shortest section. They essentially said 'uh, yeah if you can show us that whatever the banner said referred in any way possible to drugs, we'll say that it's advocating drug use."

I dont think the argument (for me) is that the rule is unconstitutional, it's that it doesn't apply in this situation. To equate 'bong hits 4 jesus' as an advocation for drug use is ridiculous. I might as well come to school with a red shirt on that says 'say yes' and be suspended for advocating murder. Obviously there's a connection between a bong and pot. But its funny that they make this connection, with no reference whatsoever to drugs on the sign, even though bongs are legally bought and sold for tobacco purposes...an issue that has been litigated in just about every state I would imagine and which the court system has upheld as an acceptable use. So if there is no clear reference to drug use and if the courts have already stated there is a non-drug use for a bong, then how is the meaning of the phrase 'bong hits 4 jesus' so crystal clear? As I said before, the mere fact that there's even an argument whether this advocates drug use is exactly why this should not be restricted.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jun 26, 2007 -> 12:18 PM) Can't say that I agree with the tag line of this thread. Here's a nice summary by a lawyer friend of mine: "I like the Supreme Court's decision. I like the reasoning, and how it was explained, and it is entirely consistent with what I described. Here is my cliff's note summary. 1. The school had a rule that prohibited students from advocating illegal acts. 2. The rule was a permissible "content-neutral" restriction designed to promote order at schools, and the rules were adopted and in place long before the event occurred. 3. The rules were, by their own terms, applicable to the event, and again, this was adopted and in place long before the event occurred. 4. The conclusion that the student violated the permissible "content-neutral" restriction was reasonable. 5. Appeal denied. My point is that it doesn't really matter what the kid was talking about, if the rule was permissible (and I think it was), and he violated the rule (I think he did), the school has not abridged his right of free speech by taking the sign and punishing him. This result is appropriate regardless of whether the kid was a punk or a star, and whether he was saying bong hits for jesus or let's all lie down in the road to protest Bush: the intent and content of his message are irrelevant. the only thing that matters is whether the rule was permissible, and whether he broke that rule." In other words, he wasn't punished for his message, but because of the disruption. What he actually said had no bearing on the case, so it did not restric his freedom of speech. I disagree completely. (a) it doesn't matter that the rule existed prior to this event. If it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. (B) I agree it was a content-neutral restriction, but the applicability to his sign is simply wrong IMO. The court said: "The Court agrees with Morse that those who viewed the banner would interpret it as advocating or promoting illegal drug use, in violation of school policy. At least two interpretations of the banner’s words—that they constitute an imperative encouraging viewers tosmoke marijuana or, alternatively, that they celebrate drug use—demonstrate that the sign promoted such use. This pro-drug interpretation gains further plausibility from the paucity of of alternative meanings the banner might bear." This is one of those situations I've seen time and time again in studying constitutional law: the Court is old and not with the current times. If you polled the school this kid was at, I'm willing to bet 80% of them (at least) would have read the sign and saw it as a joke. It was to get a rise out of people and make them laugh. It was to get attention in front of an otherwise ignored crowd. The words themselves don't even express opinion. Nor do they advocate action. I couldn't agree more with Justice Stevens on this point: "the school’s interest in protecting its students from exposure to speech “reasonably regarded as promoting illegal drug use,” cannot justifymdisciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement to a television audience simply because it contained an oblique reference to drugs. The First Amendment demands more, indeed, much more." The fact that it's even arguable if the speech advocated drug use is strong evidence that it should be protected speech. Free Speech rights, following judicial precedent, have always been against restricting speech at all costs. Here it's clear the Court simply said "what? it mentions a bong, ok well, that can't be tolerated." Edit: Forgot to add the link to the decision: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 11:19 AM) Health Care provided by government is not a right. I see no logical argument that can be made otherwise. However, health care is a matter of high priority, of national pride and of practicality. So clearly, it needs attention and money. And while I am usually in favor of private business over government buearacracy, in the case of healthcare, I actually think we need more government involvement. This is for one simple reason - providing healthcare, like providing police and fire protection, is incongruous to the aims of for-profit business. Their goals stand in direct opposition to one another in many ways. Therefore, any for-profit business in those areas by nature will result in lower quality product. The government needs to be involved, to at least the level where it incentivizes all involved to target actual quality output. I do not know how exactly to accomomplish that, but simply handing over healthcare to private insurance and providers clearly is not the answer - as evidenced by this country's lackluster system. I think once you take out the for-profit aspect of it, the health care industry will start going downhill. You'd be relying solely on government grants and private donations, something that's hard enough to accomplish as is. I want to know how a universal healthcare system would actually work. Where would the money come from? Isn't it going to be a system just like Social Security where there are too many people using it and not enough people funding it? And it's even worse because with health care one patient could literally spend millions of dollars on treatment. If you're the government how do you limit that? Can you? Do you have to be fair? Are you going to tell patient X he can get a certain procedure but patient Y can't? How would hospitals be funded? There will be arguments and lawsuits and a legislative headache to adequately fund every hospital. What about abuses of the system? Wouldn't bums go into a hospital daily to get food because they are malnourished? What about pre-existing conditions? What about people who smoke 4 packs a day? What about people who drink a bottle a day? Should society pay for their health care when they know from day one what will happen to them? Or the 21st century issue: obesity. How would such a system handle it? What about national disasters? What if New York gets hit with a bomb or something and the system is flooded with a million sick/injured? At least now, privately, the insurance companies can just up the premiums to cover their costs, but when the government does that, won't it really effect the lower-income people the most? I think the biggest problem is that unlike welfare or social security, you start at the beginning of the year with X amount of dollars. Over the course of the year you hand that X amount out to the country and when it's gone, it's gone. With healthcare its more like a budget we would try to hit but never will. It'll be a blank check at the end of the year that the government will have to write and hopefully have enough funds to pay off.

Anyone else like this show? I thought last nights was pretty solid, and I really liked the first one. "You could be a part-time model...but you better keep your other job..."

Another miss last night. I don't even understand the point of last nights show. It was 50 minutes of rehashing that the kid would be ok. None of the characters interest me, and I find myself asking 'why are they doing X? Real people wouldn't do X" more often than I should. I think it's trying to be Lost with the whole mythical who is John and what does all the weird stuff mean. But they've failed to create a plot surrounding that mystery that makes it tolerable to watch. I think I'm done trying after three episodes.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Jun 22, 2007 -> 02:35 PM) do not shop at Walmart. for alot of reasons. one they dont give their employes health covergage. second they sell a high amount of items made in countries that a have child workers. third they move into towns and kill local stores. Fourth they sell music and movies that are censored. I live in chicago and I think theres only one and we liked to keep it that way. Gripe #1 This is the typical left 'I hate money' mentality. Instead of complaining about what Wal-mart, why don't those workers leave? Why don't they band together and strike? Don't give me this BS 'some people are in tough situations' crap. If it can be done it should be done. If people are tired of their lot in life, go out and change it. This country has more opportunity than anywhere else in the world, and it also has the most lazy, unmotivated citizenry as well. That's the big difference between the left and the right. The left asks 'why should i have to do X when it can be given to me.' The right says 'go out and get what you want.' Gripe #2 is legitimate and I agree it should stop. Gripe #3 That's called business. Where are the people boycotting other national chains? McDonalds, Starbucks, HIlton, Best Buy, Jewel, etc etc. All of these huge chains killed local stores. Do you shop at all? I'm willing to bet you've shopped at a big coporation that's killed numerous mom and pop shops just in the last week. Why do you continue to shop there? Grip #4 Why is this a problem? So they pick what their standards are and sell merchandise that fits it? Do they not have the right to pick and choose what they sell in their stores?

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Jun 22, 2007 -> 01:17 PM) I agree. but acording to Jenksismyb****, you don't have a right for health care and its your own problem. People like him like to back rich medical companies over there own fellow citizens. Its sick. sicko. There's a distinction in this argument. I've never said I'm against giving people health care, I'm against labeling it as a right. Once you label something a fundamental right it forever changes the nature of the beast. Personally I was a big advocate of Henry Ford Jr. (guy from Tennessee) and his plan. He essentially said if you work hard society should reward you by helping out when you get in a bind. But it wasn't (a) forever and (B) for those who do not deserve it. And I don't think I back rich medical companies anymore than you and I and the rest of the country backs rich automobile manufacturers, rich energy companies, rich communications companies, etc. I sure hope you don't own a cell phone. God knows you're stuffing money in the cofers of the devil. I agree costs have gotten out of control in some circumstances, and for this I have no problem with the government intervening and setting up some rules. I don't see how this relates to giving everyone health care though.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 22, 2007 -> 12:16 PM) And I totally disagree with this claim, and I think that the system we have now is the best possible example of that. Study after study has shown that the system where every single insurance provider is using different forms, there is no standardization across any system, and the biggest goal of insurance providers is to not find a reason to treat people, instead of actually treating people, is vastly more expensive than what happens in any government run system. Study after study shows the same trend. Canada spends 1/3 as much on administration and paperwork as the U.S. health system (New England Journal of Medicine study). Medicare spends an order of magnitude less on paperwork than the private health care system. Paperwork in the U.S. is somewhere between 20 and 30% of health care costs. That is an absurd amount. Several hundred billion dollars are wasted on health care paperwork each year. This is why I said let the Government create the boundaries (rules) and let the private market run with it.

So if you die in the ER because the system is so backed up and abused, would that be an interference of your right? I think we're all in agreement that people dying is bad (mmkay). But that doesn't mean we should create a right to health care. My interpretation is that you have a right to life; not a right to a good life, a fair life or any other definition of life, just life. You have a right to be on the Earth. It stops there. Whether we, as an advanced civilized society, choose to make it a privilege is the debate. This right nonsense is why the Constitution has been used as legal tp for the last 200 years. And I completely disagree that the Government is in the best position to manage such a system. Let Government create the boundaries, let the private sector put it in motion. Haven't we learned yet that Government makes everything worse? Public is just about always worse than private (in terms of management). I look forward to watching Moore's movie. I can't wait to laugh at how he conveniently leaves out every problem with universal/national healthcare in countries like Canada. The insane tax increases that are needed, the insane waiting lines to see a doctor, etc. I'll bet he barely mentions those trivial facts.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 22, 2007 -> 11:41 AM) I hold it to be self-evident that humans have in fact a right to life and the pursuit of happiness, and that health care is absolutely a necessary part to both of those, and that therefore, men have the ability to request and demand that their government will take actions in that field to protect those rights. That's quite an interpretation there. Open up those gates and where does it stop? I have a right to life and pursuit of happiness, so I better get a nice home and 150k a year salary.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 22, 2007 -> 11:38 AM) I'll ask again... why is healthcare treated as a right? I've said this before, and I still haven't gotten a good answer. Because people with power (i.e. people with more money than they know what to do with) feel guilty of their success and feel the need to tell the rest of the country how they should spend their money (or how their money should be spent). Because it does not effect them in the least bit, they feel like a socialist society would be best for everyone. For examples see: George Clooney, Angelinia Jolie, Madonna, etc. etc.

I mentioned this in another thread a few weeks (or more) back, but I receive these things all the time. Here's one I just got today. Someone explain to me how this is acceptable in 2007: "Dear Student, Vault and the Minority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA) are hosting 3 legal diversity career fairs in August, 2007. This is a great opportunity for you to gain exposure to over 100 legal employers from across the U.S. (attending the 3 events) as well as valuable educational content through presentations, panel discussions, and interactive sessions focused on interviewing, career options, associate life, women & minority law leaders and more. For more information on the event and to register please visit www.vault.com/legaldiversity FAQs Q. Who will be invited to attend the Legal Diversity Career Fair? A. While all students and lateral associates are welcome to attend, the Legal Diversity Career Fair specifically targets the following underrepresented groups: * Minority, female and GLBT 1Ls who are researching future employers * Minority, female and GLBT 2Ls and 3Ls who have not yet committed to a firm or other employer * Minority, female and GLBT lateral associates who are looking for new opportunities " Emphasis added. Yes yes, I know, it says all are welcome to attend, but can you imagine the backlash of a similar invite that would say 'while all students are welcome to attend, the ____ Career Fair specifically targets white males aged 25-30 whose family income exceeds 150k per year"